[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: No more ports of unfree software



On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 09:00:55PM -0600, Peter Valchev wrote:
> Good luck defending this in court, with that retarded statement as all
> you have.  This is a joke, and it doesn't take a lawyer to realise it...

There is no reason to go into court if it is marked PERMIT_*=No.

> we do a build, which we do often.  And no, I will not stop building
> those packages who have PERMIT_* to No, because I want to make sure of
> the integrity of our ports tree.  In short, if you still don't get it -

If this is the philosophy for package builders, why isn't every FLAVOR
of every port being built?  There have been issues which would have been
found sooner if this was done.

> your opinion on this really is irrelevant, and you won't change our
> minds, especially not on the topic of DJB.  Give up.

I use DJB software because it is the shining example of arbitrary
decisions.

> You need to have all rights explicitly granted, period.

Ok...

> > archivers/unace:
> >         Copyrighted but freely distributable.  That's the whole license!
> >         Is this PERMIT_*=Yes or PERMIT_*=No?  By what logic do I
> >         determine what to set the values to?
> 
> It does not grant the right to modify and then redestribute, for
> example.  Therefore, it should not go on FTP and not on CDROM.
> It should explicitly give the rights to use & redistribute, with or
> without modifications.  If it does not do that, from what I understand a
> good lawyer can screw you in court (even though nothing was denied,
> that's the way copyright works, rights need to be granted, otherwise
> they are denied by default)

Okay I'll adjust the licensing accordingly.

> > archivers/p5-Archive-*:
> >         "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> >         modify it under the same terms as Perl itself."
> 
> I think you are getting too much off-topic here, that comment line is
> really not all that relevant.  Put "GPL/Artistic" or something

Yes, I have been a bit zealous with "just a comment".  But my real
question remains unanswered.  Is a license valid if it just says its
under the same license as something else?  Perl is GPL/Artistic/Custom.
The module could be under any part of the Perl licensing structure.
This is horribly vague.  What should I do?

> Just make sure you discuss with other people, as 1 person's
> interpretation of something is not always what it actually is.  Of
> course, if it's ambigous that's bad by itself, but that's another story.

Yes, this is a huge problem with licensing.  Many times it is ambiguous
and open to wide interpretation.  I guess if there's any disagreement it
should just be marked as PERMIT_*=No.  I'll send future changes to
ports@ with my reasoning.

> did to get the freakin distfile, and the port was deleted.  In summary,
> this is now software that I consider unacceptable for the ports tree --
> just an example.

Herein lies the problem, software that *you* consider unacceptable.
What about the other porters?  A definitive statement dictating what is
acceptable and what isn't on one of the ports webpages would help sort
this out.

> > When you started setting precedents like "no unfree software unless it's
> > a special case", that smells like politics to me.  What is meant by
> > "import any more..."?  No *new* unfree software in ports, but we can
> > keep all the unfree software we have now?  Where's the consistency?
> It means we will try to discourage non-free software in favour of free
> software in the future.  Interpret it as you wish...

I interpret it as being a loophole to let in some unfree software that
would normally be denied.  So, for example, someone could import their
favorite image viewer which just happens to not have a free license.

How else should it be interpreted it?

> > We also have ports that aren't being upgraded because they're under a
> > new license that is less free.  I'd rather have a restricted diamond
> > than a free piece of coal.
> Then you do not share the OpenBSD goals.  Let me remind you,
> http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html
> Look at the 2nd point.  The ports tree is part of OpenBSD.  Maybe you

The ports tree is part of OpenBSD, the software which is downloaded, has
patches applied to it, and then built isn't.  If it was part of OpenBSD,
it would be in the src module.

> should reconsider why you're here...

Maybe you should re-evaluate palm/palmos-sdk rather than making
suggestions to me...